And today's sartorial ward against the evils of the fog of insomnia has been achieved with the long leather skirt. And five dangly earrings. Hopefully that's enough to keep me alert but not too much to aggravate my head.

I wonder what my migraine specialist will say about the reduced sleep...well, off to see him now.

How are you doing the antibiotics? The first time I had to deal with it, it was liquid form, twice a day, which she hated but grew resigned to.

I don't know anything about antibiotics, is this something I'll need to do after teeth cleaning? It's our first one.

The Oatmeal tackles the misuse of "literally" (figuratively speaking): [link]

I don't know anything about antibiotics, is this something I'll need to do after teeth cleaning?

Well, my vet is a believer in antibiotics before and after any surgery, which is what teeth cleaning is, so the first time, he had me start her with liquid antibiotics two days before the teeth cleaning and continue it for a full week. The second time, the one-time-only shot, given a few days beforehand, took care of that hassle.

I don't think Clio got any kind of antibiotics before her cleaning/extraction.

Scored a cashmere sweater for $20 for DH--a sample. Stuff for the kids, jeans and pants for me. Paid for with my cell phone market research money.

It's gonna be a good day, Tater.

It's easier to give a cat a liquid than a pill, especially if (like Max's pain meds) it's a squirt-in-the-cheek-pouch liquid. Much harder to spit out.

But yeah, the shot is even easier.

I don't think Clio got any kind of antibiotics before her cleaning/extraction.

My Squeaky didn't get any antibiotics (from me, anyway) before or after her tooth extraction.

Today I took her to the vet for a follow-up exam - everything was fine.

The Oatmeal tackles the misuse of "literally" (figuratively speaking): [link]

Oh! I wouldn't have known someone didn't actually piss themselves without that condescending comic! I guess I should write my own screed about misguided snobs who don't understand intensifiers in language have been in use for literally forever: [link]

(I'm with the descriptivists. If the meaning is clear, it's ok. They're far less "wrong" than prescriptivism usually is about the source of their rules.)

I find this argument from Sheidlower the most compelling, on this issue:

The trouble with usage criticism of the sort leveled at literally is that it's typically uneven: Parallel uses are frequent and usually pass unnoticed. For every peruse there's a scan (see my essays on these terms here and here); for every hopefully there's a clearly; and for every literally there's a really: Or did you expect people to complain when really is used to emphasize things that are not "real"? When Meg, in Little Women, moaned that "It's been such a dismal day I'm really dying for some amusement," she wasn't the one dying.